The 2016 Presidential Candidates: Wrap Up
In the course of preparing and posting the current series on the 2016 Presidential Candidates, I was reminded of how and why I enjoy history more than current events. Even though I once considered myself a political junkie, that past-time has lost much of the appeal it once had for me. It is no longer a harmless spectator sport. Current politics have gotten nasty and vicious, whereas history is still genteel and respectful for the most part. Say something nice about Barack Obama or George W. Bush and you will instantly become a magnet for the slings and arrows of partisans on the other side of the spectrum. Many of these people have lost perspective about the importance of civility or how their own nastiness makes them appear. I'm afraid the anonymity of the internet has led many people to believe that hurling an insult or an expletive in the direction of someone espousing an opinion that they don't share somehow makes them triumphant or important, rather than being possessed of the pettiness and repulsiveness that actually emerges from such behavior. As I observed once during the course of this series, "thank God Twitter has mute."
As off-putting as this can be for a lowly blogger, one can only imagine what it must be like for the candidates themselves. Men and women who have put themselves at the forefront of all of this are lightning rods for the most mean-spirited and intolerant criticism. All of their sacrifice and their noble motives for entering the political arena are all for naught in the modern political paradigm that seems to reward insults, zingers and gotcha questions, especially if expressed in 140 characters or less. Inaccuracies are now called lies, measured in Pinocchios. Long hours of public service spent away from home and families mean nothing these days. For modern day candidates, it isn't enough to have thick skin anymore; one practically requires a Kevlar epidermis. I can't remember the last time I heard someone say of a candidate, "while I disagree with you on issue X, I respect you for your service and personal sacrifice."
My review of the positions of the candidates also pointed out the wide divisions which exist over certain issues, to the point where a zero tolerance policy seems to have developed to the exclusion of all other beliefs. If a person is gay or believes in same-sex marriage, but favors lower taxes and lower spending, is that person welcome in the Republican party? What is that person is also pro-choice? Is someone who opposes abortion in all cases based on personal religious beliefs, but also wants stricter gun control and socialized medicine, is that person welcome in the Democratic party? Can anyone answer these questions without adding some strong disparagement and blaming of the other party? Or is this all just for show until the primaries are over?
In looking at the biographies of the the 21 candidates, what is often overlooked is the sacrifices made by these men and women and the strong principles they espouse. Practically all of them have compassion for the economic suffering of their countrymen, even if they differ on the best way to address the problem.
This isn't to suggest that mud-slinging is a recent phenomenon or that personal attacks haven't been a part of political campaigns. These things are as old as Adams vs. Jefferson. They've always been around and always will be. But for me the reason I prefer history to current political events is because of the lack of anger, vitriol and belittlement that attaches to the former. Visit any Presidential library or National Historic Site and take in the passion of the volunteers. Experience what a labor of love it is for them and how they are able to sing the praises of their particular subject president without any disparagement of the opponent. Through the lens of history both the winner and the loser of most elections seem to have noble characteristics and admirable qualities. It is easy to admire both Lincoln and Douglas, both Hayes and Tilden, both McKinley and Bryan. Even in the cases of Pierce, Buchanan, Harding or even Nixon, one can either find something worthy of a compliment or at least evocative of sympathy. People temper criticisms of Pierce by remembering his personal tragedy (the horrible death of his son prior to his inauguration.) They consider the almost impossible problem that Buchanan inherited or credit Nixon with his success in reaching out to China. Warren Harding may have had a knack for choosing crooked subordinates, but he had the courage to stare down racists in the heart of Alabama and tell them that racism was wrong. Gut-wrenching anger is less forthcoming when one looks to past. It's easier to take the bad with the good.
As someone famously once said, we can be part of the problem or part of the solution. Today when a candidate from the other side of your political spectrum puts proposes something that you disagree with, consider rejecting the idea without hating the person. When someone in social media hurls an insult, don't applaud, retweet or join in. Your life is much more worthwhile than to find any enjoyment or value in the negativity. To borrow from the language of 12 step programs, put "principles before personalities."
I embarked on this series to learn more about the candidates. While I feel as if I've accomplished that, I feel like I've learned much more about the electorate. And it has reminded me of Gandhi's famous suggestion, asking for us to be the change we want to see in the world.
As off-putting as this can be for a lowly blogger, one can only imagine what it must be like for the candidates themselves. Men and women who have put themselves at the forefront of all of this are lightning rods for the most mean-spirited and intolerant criticism. All of their sacrifice and their noble motives for entering the political arena are all for naught in the modern political paradigm that seems to reward insults, zingers and gotcha questions, especially if expressed in 140 characters or less. Inaccuracies are now called lies, measured in Pinocchios. Long hours of public service spent away from home and families mean nothing these days. For modern day candidates, it isn't enough to have thick skin anymore; one practically requires a Kevlar epidermis. I can't remember the last time I heard someone say of a candidate, "while I disagree with you on issue X, I respect you for your service and personal sacrifice."
My review of the positions of the candidates also pointed out the wide divisions which exist over certain issues, to the point where a zero tolerance policy seems to have developed to the exclusion of all other beliefs. If a person is gay or believes in same-sex marriage, but favors lower taxes and lower spending, is that person welcome in the Republican party? What is that person is also pro-choice? Is someone who opposes abortion in all cases based on personal religious beliefs, but also wants stricter gun control and socialized medicine, is that person welcome in the Democratic party? Can anyone answer these questions without adding some strong disparagement and blaming of the other party? Or is this all just for show until the primaries are over?
In looking at the biographies of the the 21 candidates, what is often overlooked is the sacrifices made by these men and women and the strong principles they espouse. Practically all of them have compassion for the economic suffering of their countrymen, even if they differ on the best way to address the problem.
This isn't to suggest that mud-slinging is a recent phenomenon or that personal attacks haven't been a part of political campaigns. These things are as old as Adams vs. Jefferson. They've always been around and always will be. But for me the reason I prefer history to current political events is because of the lack of anger, vitriol and belittlement that attaches to the former. Visit any Presidential library or National Historic Site and take in the passion of the volunteers. Experience what a labor of love it is for them and how they are able to sing the praises of their particular subject president without any disparagement of the opponent. Through the lens of history both the winner and the loser of most elections seem to have noble characteristics and admirable qualities. It is easy to admire both Lincoln and Douglas, both Hayes and Tilden, both McKinley and Bryan. Even in the cases of Pierce, Buchanan, Harding or even Nixon, one can either find something worthy of a compliment or at least evocative of sympathy. People temper criticisms of Pierce by remembering his personal tragedy (the horrible death of his son prior to his inauguration.) They consider the almost impossible problem that Buchanan inherited or credit Nixon with his success in reaching out to China. Warren Harding may have had a knack for choosing crooked subordinates, but he had the courage to stare down racists in the heart of Alabama and tell them that racism was wrong. Gut-wrenching anger is less forthcoming when one looks to past. It's easier to take the bad with the good.
As someone famously once said, we can be part of the problem or part of the solution. Today when a candidate from the other side of your political spectrum puts proposes something that you disagree with, consider rejecting the idea without hating the person. When someone in social media hurls an insult, don't applaud, retweet or join in. Your life is much more worthwhile than to find any enjoyment or value in the negativity. To borrow from the language of 12 step programs, put "principles before personalities."
I embarked on this series to learn more about the candidates. While I feel as if I've accomplished that, I feel like I've learned much more about the electorate. And it has reminded me of Gandhi's famous suggestion, asking for us to be the change we want to see in the world.